Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Temple council holds first reading of ordinance proposing multiple charter amendments
Summary
At its June 1 meeting the Temple City Council read a proposed ordinance that would revise multiple charter sections — from committee rules and board terms to municipal court procedures and sentencing authority — with final action scheduled for July.
At its regular meeting on June 1, the Temple City Council held a first reading of an ordinance proposing multiple amendments to the City of Temple charter, citing authority under OCGA 36‑35‑3. The mayor read the ordinance aloud and explained the changes would bring city code into conformity with state law.
The ordinance text presented revises committee procedures (sec. 2‑11), removes existing language on certain board terms (sec. 3‑2G), and updates municipal judge contracts to require compliance “in accordance with applicable state law” (sec. 4‑2D). It also replaces the municipal court session language (sec. 4‑3) to allow the municipal judge to set court times and clarifies sentencing authority (sec. 4‑4C) to permit sentences and fines up to the limits allowed under state law (the reading recited wording referencing fines not exceeding $1,000 and imprisonment not exceeding 180 days where state law allows). The ordinance adds a requirement that city contracts be in writing and authorized (sec. 6‑22) and adds language obligating the city to pay the cost of statutory surety bonds for city officers or employees when law requires them (sec. 7‑1). The text includes a severability clause and repeal language for conflicting laws.
The mayor said the council had advertised the intent to introduce the charter amendment in accordance with OCGA 36‑35‑3 and that the ordinance’s adoption and approval will be voted on at the regular July meeting; if adopted then, it will go into effect as provided in the ordinance.
Why it matters: the proposed amendments would change municipal procedures (committee organization), court administration (timing and sentencing language) and contracting formalities, and they explicitly tie certain provisions to state law; taken together they could alter how the municipal court operates and how the city enters contracts.
Next steps: the council did not act to adopt the ordinance on June 1; the council scheduled final action for its regular July meeting.
